Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30622735›Full record

ArticleRMD open2018

Patient-reported outcome measures in osteoarthritis: a systematic search and review of their use and psychometric properties.

Åsa Lundgren-Nilsson, Anna Dencker, Annie Palstam, Gert Person, Mike C Horton, Reuben Escorpizo, Ayse A Küçükdeveci, Sehim Kutlay, Atilla H Elhan, Gerold Stucki and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in RMD open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Studying the Natural History of the Knee Joint.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Åsa Lundgren-NilssonInstitute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Anna DenckerCentre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Annie PalstamInstitute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Gert PersonReumatikerfӧrbundet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mike C HortonPsychometric Laboratory for Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Reuben EscorpizoDepartment of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Ayse A KüçükdeveciDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Sehim KutlayDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Atilla H ElhanDepartment of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Gerold StuckiDepartment of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Alan TennantSwiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Philip G ConaghanLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient-reported outcome measures (PROM) or self-completed questionnaires have been used to report outcomes in osteoarthritis (OA) for over 35 years. Choices will always need to be made about what should be measured and, if relevant, what would be the most appropriate PROM to use. The current study aims to describe the available PROMs used in OA and their performance quality, so that informed choices can be made about the most appropriate PROM for a particular task.

methodsThe study included a systematic search for PROMs that have been in use over 17 years (period 2000-2016), and to catalogue their psychometric properties, and to present the evidence in a user-friendly fashion.

results78 PROMs were identified with psychometric evidence available. The domains of pain, self-care, mobility and work dominated, whereas domains such as cleaning and laundry and leisure, together with psychological and contextual factors, were poorly served. The most frequently used PROMs included the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index, the Short Form 36 and the Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score which, between them, appeared in more than 4000 papers. Most domains had at least one PROM with the highest level of psychometric evidence.

conclusionA broad range of PROMs are available for measuring OA outcomes. Some have good psychometric evidence, others not so. Some important psychological areas such as self-efficacy were poorly served. The study provides a current baseline for what is available, and identifies the shortfall in key domains if the full biopsychosocial model is to be explored.

Indexed as

osteoarthritispatient, reported outcome measurequestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID30622735
PMCPMC6307597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.